Tackling entertainment and the two most taboo topics in life - Politics and Religion - from a conservative, centrist and libertarian worldview

"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory." Leonard Nimoy

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Right To Bear Arms or Right to Control Arms

Gun control advocates are smelling blood in the constitutional waters and are becoming about as ravenous as a bevy of Great White sharks at a chum-fest. With a liberal press as allies certain vocal and powerful members of Congress, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi are screaming bloody murder at the top of their political tongues aggressively pushing for an attack on the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Of course they aren’t publicly saying that is their intention but those fine-tuned to constitutional infringement are well aware of their true cause and purpose behind their legislation to curb lawful gun ownership.

These two elected representatives and their many supporters on the liberal left are using the gut-wrenching recent tragedies like Sandy Hook, Gabby Gifford and the Colorado theater shootings as fodder for their grossly inaccurate and wholly devious attempt at removing guns from anyone and everyone not officially sanctioned by them, a.k.a., The Federal Government. That means you and me, the common Joe-citizen who has for the last 237 years been guaranteed the right to bear arms. The very government our founders warned us against and the main reason they included the 2nd Amendment in the first place is the same government now trying to strip those rights. Perhaps another look at the 2nd Amendment would be appropriate:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Notice that the U.S. Constitution’s 2nd amendment is not about gun control. It is about a citizen’s “right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” So, in one regard those wishing to control gun ownership are not infringing on that right. They are wanting to regulate the type of arms being kept and bore by the people, not their right to bear arms. This is the underhanded and veiled argument currently being used by Feinstein, Pelosi and those of their ilk. Legally it can be used as a persuasive argument.

Therefore, the question before us as it relates to gun control is how far are “the people” willing to go to allow their elected officials to regulate the TYPE of arms they wish to bear? In the 1930’s the people said it was alright for the federal government to ban fully automatic weapons. By-the-way, then as now, this ban was deemed necessary as a result of mobsters like Machine Gun Kelly, Bonnie and Clyde and other high profile bad guys using automatic machine guns in their crime sprees across America. The politicians of that day preyed on the fears of an uniformed public the same as they are doing today to coerce the people to rally around the ban. Now the target is semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15 and others. These are not automatic weapons and comply to federal and State regulations that require the weapon to fire one round at a time by each individual trigger pull. The new government name for these legal guns is assault weapons, even though that term is more accurately applied to automatic weapons.

Another point that must be considered is what the 2nd Amendment is guaranteeing and why it was added by the nation’s founders. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with curtailing criminal activity by those who might abuse the privilege. It was not intended to afford hunters and sportsman or those in shooting competition the guarantee that they can kill Bambi, a skeet, or a target at their leisure. While these are by-products of the amendment they are not the cause for its inclusion into the Constitution. Another reading of the amendment gives a very clear reason behind the founder’s inclusion. I will make the reason in BOLD print so as not to miss it:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I think it is very clear that the right to keep and bear arms by every free citizen shall not be infringed by any government, be it Local, State or Federal so that all the freedoms set forth in the entire U.S. Constitution can be MAINTAINED! The fear of the founders was a day might come when any branch of the government on any level would try to remove that right from its citizens. Removing any kind of arms, be it automatic, semi-automatic, manual or powder-loaded is an infringement of that right the Constitution guarantees. Therefore, the responsibility for insuring the rights of a free State was not left solely up to the elected officials of the government, but falls squarely on the shoulders of a well-armed We the People. Perhaps, as in most other things, We the People have delegated too much of our own duties to those we have elected to public office. Perhaps, it is time to return to the vision of the founders.

83 years ago, out of fear and federal manipulation of the facts and with the help of the press of the time the people allowed the first infringement on their right to keep and bear arms. Are we going to allow the exact same thing to happen yet again? Will we allow the Feinsteins’ and Pelosis’ along with their left-winged liberal press flunkies to once again dictate what our rights are to be? Or, will We the People step forward as our ancestors of the 1930’s failed to do and say, “enough is enough!” Contact your Senator and House Congressional Representative. Flood their offices with emails, snail mail and faxes and telephone calls rallying them on to kill any effort from congress to take away your right to keep and bear arms. Don’t give up your rights through apathy, disillusionment, or a lack of information. Get busy, get informed and get active to save your freedom.

There is a reason why our founders placed the right to keep and bear arms as the 2nd amendment. Because the 1st amendment, the right to a free press and free speech, is impossible to maintain without an armed citizenry there to keep that freedom secure.